Research article

Double total domination number of Cartesian product of paths

  • Received: 10 December 2022 Revised: 03 February 2023 Accepted: 08 February 2023 Published: 20 February 2023
  • MSC : 05C69

  • A vertex set S of a graph G is called a double total dominating set if every vertex in G has at least two adjacent vertices in S. The double total domination number γ×2,t(G) of G is the minimum cardinality over all the double total dominating sets in G. Let GH denote the Cartesian product of graphs G and H. In this paper, the double total domination number of Cartesian product of paths is discussed. We determine the values of γ×2,t(PiPn) for i=2,3, and give lower and upper bounds of γ×2,t(PiPn) for i4.

    Citation: Linyu Li, Jun Yue, Xia Zhang. Double total domination number of Cartesian product of paths[J]. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(4): 9506-9519. doi: 10.3934/math.2023479

    Related Papers:

    [1] Ana Klobučar Barišić, Antoaneta Klobučar . Double total domination number in certain chemical graphs. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(11): 19629-19640. doi: 10.3934/math.20221076
    [2] Zhihong Xie, Guoliang Hao, S. M. Sheikholeslami, Shuting Zeng . On the Italian reinforcement number of a digraph. AIMS Mathematics, 2021, 6(6): 6490-6505. doi: 10.3934/math.2021382
    [3] Abel Cabrera-Martínez, Andrea Conchado Peiró, Juan Manuel Rueda-Vázquez . Further results on the total Italian domination number of trees. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(5): 10654-10664. doi: 10.3934/math.2023540
    [4] Abel Cabrera Martínez, Iztok Peterin, Ismael G. Yero . Roman domination in direct product graphs and rooted product graphs. AIMS Mathematics, 2021, 6(10): 11084-11096. doi: 10.3934/math.2021643
    [5] Nuttawoot Nupo, Chollawat Pookpienlert . Fractional domination and fractional total domination on Cayley digraphs of transformation semigroups with fixed sets. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(6): 14558-14573. doi: 10.3934/math.2024708
    [6] Chang-Xu Zhang, Fu-Tao Hu, Shu-Cheng Yang . On the (total) Roman domination in Latin square graphs. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(1): 594-606. doi: 10.3934/math.2024031
    [7] Ahlam Almulhim . Signed double Italian domination. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(12): 30895-30909. doi: 10.3934/math.20231580
    [8] Saeed Kosari, Yongsheng Rao, Zehui Shao, Jafar Amjadi, Rana Khoeilar . Complexity of signed total $k$-Roman domination problem in graphs. AIMS Mathematics, 2021, 6(1): 952-961. doi: 10.3934/math.2021057
    [9] Betül ATAY ATAKUL . Stability and domination exponentially in some graphs. AIMS Mathematics, 2020, 5(5): 5063-5075. doi: 10.3934/math.2020325
    [10] Rangel Hernández-Ortiz, Luis Pedro Montejano, Juan Alberto Rodríguez-Velázquez . Weak Roman domination in rooted product graphs. AIMS Mathematics, 2021, 6(4): 3641-3653. doi: 10.3934/math.2021217
  • A vertex set S of a graph G is called a double total dominating set if every vertex in G has at least two adjacent vertices in S. The double total domination number γ×2,t(G) of G is the minimum cardinality over all the double total dominating sets in G. Let GH denote the Cartesian product of graphs G and H. In this paper, the double total domination number of Cartesian product of paths is discussed. We determine the values of γ×2,t(PiPn) for i=2,3, and give lower and upper bounds of γ×2,t(PiPn) for i4.



    Throughout this article, we only deal with finite and simple graphs. For the undefined notation and terminology, one may refer to [4]. Let G=(V(G),E(G)) be a graph. The open neighborhood of a vertex vV is denoted by NG(v)={uV:uvE(G)}, and the degree of v in G is denoted by d(v)=|NG(v)|. A graph G is k-regular if every vertex has degree k in G. We use δ(G) and Δ(G) denote the minimum degree and the maximum degree among the vertices of G, respectively. For a subset SV(G), let G[S] denote the subgraph induced by S. For simplicity, the induced subgraph G[V(G)S] is denoted by GS. For two disjoint subsets X,YV(G), we use e(X,Y) to denote the number of edges with one end in X and the other end in Y. The Cartesian product GH of two graphs G and H is the graph with vertex set V(GH)=V(G)×V(H), and edge (u1,v1)(u2,v2)E(GH) if and only if either u1=u2 and v1v2E(H) or v1=v2 and u1u2E(G). In general, let Pn, Cn denote a path, a cycle of order n, respectively.

    A total dominating set of G is a subset SV(G) such that each vertex in V(G) has a neighbor in S. The total domination number γt(G) is the cardinality of a minimum total dominating set of G. The notion of total domination in graphs was first introduced by Cockayne et al. [8]. Numerous results on this object have been obtained over the years. Reader may refer to an excellent total domination book [12] and a survey [9]. A problem on total domination appeared as Question 3 of the 40th International Mathematical Olympiad, which is equivalent to determining the total domination number of the Cartesian product of two path graphs with same even order, i.e. γt(P2nP2n). And further, several authors have studied the total domination number on product of graphs such as Cartesian, strong and lexicographic products (see [2,6,13,14,16,19]).

    Except the classical total domination problem, there are many different ways to generalize the total dominating set. One of them is introduced by Henning and Kazemi in [10,11]: Given an integer k, a subset SV(G) is a k-tuple total dominating set (kTDS in short) of G if every vertex vV(G) has |N(v)S|k, this is, every vertex of G has at least k neighbors in S. The k-tuple total domination number γ×k,t(G) is the cardinality of a minimum kTDS of G. Henning and Kazemi [10] first studied the k-tuple total domination number, and obtained some results of the k-tuple total domination number of complete multipartite graphs. They also gave a useful observation.

    Observation 1.1. [10] Let G be graph of order n with δ(G)k. Then,

    (a) γ×k,t(G)n;

    (b) if G is a spanning subgraph of graph H, then γ×k,t(H)γ×k,t(G);

    (c) if v is a vertex with degree k in G and S is a kTDS in G, then NG(x)S.

    We remark that 1-tuple total domination is the well-known total domination. When k=2, a k-tuple total dominating set is called a double total dominating set, abbreviated to DTDS, and the 2-tuple total domination number is also called the double total domination number, denoted by γ×2,t(G). This parameter was studied in [1,3,5,7,15,17,18]. Especially, Kazemi et al. [15] determined the value of the double total domination number of Cartesian product of some complete graphs. Bermudo et al. [3] gave the following result on the double total domination number.

    Theorem 1.2. [3] Let j2,n3 be two integers. Then,

    (a) when j is odd, γ×2,t(PjCn)=(j+1)n2;

    (b) when j is even, γ×2,t(CjCn)=jn2.

    Naturally, we may ask the following problem: What are the values of the double total domination numbers of Cartesian products of paths? In order to answer the problem, we make a step in this paper. In the next section, we give the values of γ×2,t(PiPn) for i=2,3, and the lower and upper bounds for γ×2,t(PiPn) when i4.

    In this section, we simplify the notation for V(PmPn). For example, when m=4, if P4=abcd, Pn=v1v2vn, we denote simply the vertices (a,vi) as ai, (b,vi) as bi, (c,vi) as ci, (d,vi) as di, respectively. Moreover, set Xi={ai,bi,ci,di} for 1in.

    First, we give a lower bound for the double total domination number of P2Pn.

    Lemma 2.1. Let n2 be an integer. Then

    γ×2,t(P2Pn){2n,ifn4;(4n+6)/3,ifn5andn0(mod3);(4n+8)/3,ifn5andn1(mod3);(4n+4)/3,ifn5andn2(mod3).

    Proof. Let P2=ab, Pn=v1v2vn, and Xi={ai,bi} for 1in. Denote G=P2Pn. Pick a minimum DTDS D of G. Since δ(G)=2 and Δ(G)=3, then D=D2D3, where Di={vD:|N(v)D|=i} for i{2,3}. Note that XiD (i=1,2,n1,n) by Observation 1.1 (c). Then, when n4, we have |D|=|V(G)|=2n, as desired. Next, we consider the case that n5.

    Let ¯D=V(G)D. First, we claim that

    2|¯D|e(D,¯D)(|D|4)(Δ2)=|D|4.

    The first inequality holds because every vertex in ¯D is adjacent to at least two vertices in D, and the second one holds because e(X1Xn,¯D)=0 and each of the remaining |D|4 vertices has at most Δ2 neighbors in ¯D. Therefore

    γ×2,t(G)=|D|2|V(G)|+43=4n+43.

    Since γ×2,t(G) is an integer, the result holds when n0(mod3) or n2(mod3).

    The remaining case is n=3k+1, where k1 is an integer. We apply induction on k. For k=1, G=P2P4. As discussed above, γ×2,t(G)=2n=4×4+83. Suppose that the result holds for k1, where k2. Our goal is to prove that it is also valid for k. Recall that XiD (i=1,2,n1,n). If D contains at least two vertices in X3Xn2, then there are at least two vertices in X2Xn1 that are not adjacent to any vertex in ¯D. Furthermore, there are at least six vertices in X1X2Xn1Xn which are in D and not adjacent to any vertex in ¯D. Therefore, we have e(D,¯D)(|D|6)(Δ2)=|D|6. On the other hand, e(D,¯D)2|¯D|=2(|V(G)||D|). Then |D|4n+63=12k+103. So |D|12k+123=4n+83 because |D| is an integer. If D contains at most one vertex in X3Xn2, without loss of generality, we may assume X3D=. By definition of the double total dominating set, we know X4D and then X5D. Note that, when n=7, X5=Xn2. This belongs to the preceding case. When n10, set X=X1X2X3 and G=GX. Let D=DX=D(X1X2). It is easy to see that D is a DTDS of G. By induction,

    |D|γ×2,t(G)4(3(k1)+1)+83=4(n3)+83.

    Thus we have |D|=|D|+44n+83.

    Next we determine the value of γ×2,t(P2Pn).

    Theorem 2.2. Let n2 be an integer. Then

    γ×2,t(P2Pn)={2n,ifn4;(4n+6)/3,ifn5andn0(mod3);(4n+8)/3,ifn5andn1(mod3);(4n+4)/3,ifn5andn2(mod3).

    Proof. Let Xi be defined as earlier in the proof of Lemma ???, where 1in. Let G=P2Pn. When n4, it is as desired. Next we assume that n5.

    We will show the upper bound through constructing a DTDS S of G. Let

    X=X1X2Xn1Xn.

    By Observation 1.1 (c), X is contained in every DTDS of G. When n=3k, set S=X(k1i=1X3i+1)(k2i=1X3i+2). Then |S|=8+2(k1)+2(k2)=4n+63. Therefore γ×2,t(G)|S|=4n+63. When n=3k+1, set S=X(k1i=1X3i+1)(k1i=1X3i+2). Then,

    γ×2,t(G)|S|=8+2(k1)+2(k1)=4n+83.

    Finally, when n=3k+2, set S=X(k1i=1X3i+1)(k1i=1X3i+2). Clearly,

    γ×2,t(G)|S|=8+2(k1)+2(k1)=4n+43.

    Also, by Lemma 2.1, the proof is completed.

    For γ×2,t(P3Pn), we give a lower bound firstly. Before that, we need an observation.

    Observation 2.3. Let G=PmPn, X=hi=1Xi and G=GX, where h is a positive integer and h<n. If D is a DTDS of G, then we can obtain a "nearly" DTDS, DX, of G by confining D on G. (Each of V(G)Xh+1 has at least two neighbors in DX.) Extend some vertices to DX, and denote the resulting set by D. If each vertex in Xh+1 has at least two neighbors in D, then D is a DTDS of G.

    Lemma 2.4. Let n2 be an integer. Then

    γ×2,t(P3Pn){2n+1,ifn1(mod2);2n+2,ifn0(mod2).

    Proof. Let G=P3Pn with P3=abc and Pn=v1v2vn, and D be a minimum DTDS of G. Set Xi={ai,bi,ci} for 1in.

    First, we introduce three constructions in Figure 1. (In the remaining, for the figures of the paper, a hollow dot denotes a vertex in D, a cross dot denotes a vertex not in D.) If biD (2in1), then {ai1,ai+1,ci1,ci+1}D because either of ai and ci must have at least two neighbors in D (see construction (Ⅰ)). If {ai,ci}D= (3in2), then {ai2,ai+2,bi1,bi+1,ci2,ci+2}D because each of {ai1, ai+1, ci1, ci+1} has at least two neighbors in D (see construction (Ⅱ)). If XiD= (3in2), then Xi1Xi+1{ai2,ai+2,ci2,ci+2}D by the definition of DTDS (see construction (Ⅲ)).

    Figure 1.  Three constructions in the proof of Lemma 2.4.

    We prove the lemma by induction on n. When n=2, the result holds by Theorem 2.2. According to Observation 1.1(c), we have the following conclusions for 3n5. When n=3, we have {b1,a2,c2,b3}D. Focusing on vertices b1,b3, at least two of a1,b2,c1 and at least two of a3,b2,c3 are in D. It implies that γ×2,t(P3P3)7. We give a DTDS with 7 vertices in Figure 2(a). When n=4, we have {a2,a3,b1,b4,c2,c3}D (see Figure 2(b)). On each dash curve, there are at least two vertices contained in D by the definition of DTDS. Thus, γ×2,t(P3P4)10. When n=5, we know that {b1,a2,c2,a4,c4,b5}D. Furthermore, on each dash curve, there are at least two vertices contained in D (see Figure 2(c)). Thus |D|10. If {a3,c3}D=, then D would contain all vertices of i=1,2,4,5Xi by construction (Ⅱ), which means that |D|12. If {a3,c3}D, then |D|11. Thus γ×2,t(P3P5)11 in either of these cases. (We give a minimum DTDS of G with 11 vertices in Figure 2(d) when n=5.)

    Figure 2.  Some cases for 3n6 in Lemma 2.4.

    When n=6, {a2,a5,b1,b6,c2,c5}D, at least 2 vertices of NG(b1), NG(b6) are contained in D, respectively. If |(X3X4)D|4, we are done. Consider the cases that |(X3X4)D|3. Without loss of generality, we may assume |X3D|1. If X3D=, then X1X2X4D by construction (Ⅲ), so γ×2,t(P3P6)14 (see Figure 2(e)). If X3D={c3} (similarly, for X3D={a3}), then {a2,a4,c2,c4}D by construction (Ⅰ). Furthermore, {a1,b2,b4}D because a3D. Thus γ×2,t(P3P6)14 (see Figure 2(f)). If X3D={b3}, then {a1,a5,b2,b4,c1,c5}D by construction (Ⅱ) (see Figure 2(g)). If b5D, then {a4,a6,c4,c6}D by construction (Ⅰ). If b5D, noting that a5 (c5) has at least two neighbors in D, at least one of a4 and a6 (c4 and c6) is in D. In either of these cases, γ×2,t(P3P6)14.

    Next, we only discuss the case n0(mod2), and the argument of case n1(mod2) is similar by replacing 2n+2 with 2n+1. Assume that the result holds for n2 where n8. Suppose, to the contrary, γ×2,t(G)<2n+2. Next, we will choose a vertex subset X. Let G=GX. Then, basing on a DTDS D of G, we obtain a DTDS D of G. Finally, we deduce contradictions according to the relation between |D| and |D| and induction on index n.

    By Observation 1.1 (c), we have {a2,b1,c2}D. Focusing on b1, it is clear that at least two of a1,c1,b2 are contained in D. This means that |D(X1X2)|5. If |D(X1X2)|=6 and |D(X3X4)|4, then we can extend the missing vertices of X3X4 (with at most two) to D(X1X2) and obtain a vertex set D=(D(X1X2))(X3X4). Then |D||D|6+2<2n2. By Observation 2.3, D is a DTDS of G=G(X1X2). By induction, |D|γ×2,t(G)2(n2)+2=2n2, a contradiction. Similarly, if |D(X1X2)|=5 and |D(X3X4)|5, then we also can obtain a contradiction. Since either of a3, c4 has at least two neighbors in D, we know that at least one of a4 and b3 (c3 and b4, respectively) in D. That is to say, |D(X3X4)|2. Therefore, we only need discuss the following two cases to complete the proof.

    Case 1. |D(X1X2)|=6 and 2|D(X3X4)|3.

    Case 1.1. If |D(X3X4)|=3, we claim that either D=(D4i=1Xi){a3,b3,a4,b4,c4} or D=(D4i=1Xi){b3,c3,a4,b4,c4} is a DTDS of G=G(X1X2). (For otherwise, focusing on vertices a4,c4, there would be {a3,c3,b4}D and a5,c5D. Also, |D(X3X4)|=3 means that b3D. By construction (Ⅰ), a4,c4D, then |D(X3X4)|5, a contradiction.) There is |D|γ×2,t(G)2(n2)+2=2n2. On the other hand, |D|=|D|9+5<2n2, a contradiction.

    Case 1.2. If |D(X3X4)|=2, then at least one of pairs {a3,a4},{b3,b4},{c3,c4} does not intersect with D. If {b3,b4}D=, then {a3,c3,a4,c4}D by construction (Ⅰ), a contradiction. By symmetry, we discuss the case that {a3,a4}D=. Then there is {a2,b3,b4,a5}D. The condition |D(X3X4)|=2 implies that {c3,c4}D= and furthermore c5D. Focusing on vertices a5,c5, we know that {b5,a6,c6}D (see Figure 3(a)). Set X=4i=1Xi. Then D=DX is a DTDS of G=GX. Clearly, |D|=|D|8<2n6. By induction, |D|γ×2,t(G)2(n4)+2=2n6, a contradiction.

    Figure 3.  Illustrations for Cases 1 and 2 in Lemma 2.4.

    Case 2. |D(X1X2)|=5 and 2|D(X3X4)|4.

    Case 2.1. If |D(X3X4)|=4, then D=(D4i=1Xi){a3,b3,a4,b4,c4} or D=(D4i=1Xi){b3,c3,a4,b4,c4} is a DTDS of G=G(X1X2). There is |D|γ×2,t(G)2(n2)+2=2n2. On the other hand, |D|=|D|9+5<2n2, a contradiction.

    Case 2.2. If |D(X3X4)|=3, we consider two subcases according to b2D or not.

    (1) b2D. By construction (Ⅰ), {a3,c3}D. We claim that b3D. (For otherwise, there would be {a4,c4}D by construction (Ⅰ), then |D(X3X4)|4, a contradiction.) |D(X3X4)|=3 means that X4D=. By construction (Ⅲ), X5{a6,c6}D (see Figure 3(b)). Set X=4i=1Xi. Then D=DX is a DTDS of G=GX. Clearly, |D|=|D|8<2n6. By induction, |D|γ×2,t(G)2(n4)+2=2n6, a contradiction.

    (2) b2D. By symmetry, we may assume that a1D. First, we establish a claim.

    Claim. {a3,b3}D.

    Since a2 has at least two neighbors in D, clearly a3D. Focusing on vertices a3,c4, we know that at least one of b3 and a4 (c3 and b4, respectively) in D (). If b3D, then {a4,c4}D by construction (Ⅰ). It implies that |D(X3X4)|4, a contradiction. The claim is done.

    Recall that one of c3,b4 is in D (see ()). If c3D, then X4D=. By construction (Ⅲ), X5{a6,c6}D (see Figure 3(c)). Similar to (1), we can deduce a contradiction. If b4D, then {c3,a4,c4}D=. By construction (Ⅱ), there is {b5,a6,c6}D. Also, focusing on c4, we know that c5D. Furthermore, focusing on a6, we deduce that a5 or b6 in D (see Figure 3(d)). No matter which one of a5, b6 being in D, D=D4i=1Xi is a DTDS of G=G4i=1Xi. However, there are |D|=|D|8<2n6 and |D|γ×2,t(G)2(n4)+2=2n6, a contradiction.

    Case 2.3. If |D(X3X4)|=2, then at least one of pairs {a3,a4},{b3,b4},{c3,c4} does not intersect with D. Similar to the proof of Case 1.2, the unique possibility is {a3,a4,c3,c4}D=. Focusing on the vertices a2,c2, there is {a1,b2,c1}D. This means that |D(X1X2)|=6, a contradiction.

    In each of these cases, we deduce a contradiction. Therefore, we draw a conclusion that γ×2,t(P3Pn)2n+2 when n0(mod2). It is analogous to verify that γ×2,t(P3Pn)2n+1 when n1(mod2) by replacing 2n+2 with 2n+1 in the above proof.

    We are ready to prove our second result.

    Theorem 2.5. Let n2 be an integer. Then

    γ×2,t(P3Pn)={2n+1,ifn1(mod2);2n+2,ifn0(mod2).

    Proof. When n0(mod2), set S=(ni=1{ai,ci}){b1,bn}. It is clear that S is a DTDS of graph G. Hence γ×2,t(G)2n+2.

    When n3(mod4), i.e. n=4k+3 for some nonnegative integer k, set

    S=(ni=1bi)(ki=0{a4i+2,a4i+3,c4i+1,c4i+2})

    (see Figure 4(a) for the case n=7), then |S|=n+4(k+1)=2n+1. When n1(mod4), i.e. n=4k+1 for some positive integer k, set

    S=(ni=1bi{b4k1})(k1i=0{a4i+2,a4i+3,c4i+1,c4i+2}){a4k,c4k,c4k+1}
    Figure 4.  A DTDS S for n=7, n=9, respectively.

    (see Figure 4(b) for the case that n=9), then |S|=n1+4k+3=2n+1. In these two cases, it is easy to check that S is a DTDS of G. Thus, γ×2,t(G)|S|=2n+1 when n1(mod2).

    By Lemma 2.4, the proof is completed.

    Let G=PmPn with Pm=u1u2um, Pn=v1v2vn, where integers m2, n2. For the vertex uiV(Pm) and vjV(Pn), we denote simply the vertex (ui,vj) by xij, 1im, 1jn. For each 1im and 1jn, we denote Xj=mi=1xij, Yi=nj=1xij. Before moving forward, we give a useful lemma.

    Lemma 2.6. Let G=PmPn, where integers n4,m4, and D be a minimum DTDS of G. Then

    |D(X1XnY1Ym)|m+n.

    Proof. For any vertex set W{X1,Xn,Y1,Yn}, we will show at least |W|2 vertices of W in D. W.l.o.g., we pick W=Y1={x11,x12,,x1n}. Set D=V(G)D. Since each vertex of Y1{x11,x1n} has degree 3 and either of x11,x1n has degree 2, it is impossible to appear three consecutive vertices in Y1D. (For otherwise, the interior vertex is adjacent to at most one vertex in D, a contradiction.) Moreover, if xY1D, then x has at least one neighbor in Y1D. By the above discussion and Observation 1.1 (c), we can establish the following four facts.

    (F1) The length of any sequence of consecutive vertices is at most two in Y1D.

    (F2) The length of any sequence of consecutive vertices is at least two in Y1D.

    (F3) For every four consecutive vertices in Y1, at least two of them in D.

    (F4) {x12,x1(n1)}D.

    Concretely, we discuss the following three cases according to x11,x1n in D or not.

    Case 1. {x11,x1n}D=. By (F2) and (F4), {x12,x13,x1(n2),x1(n1)}D. By virtue of (F3), we consider four subcases.

    (1.1) n0 (mod 4).

    Since |(Y1{x11,x12,x13,x1n})D|n42, |Y1D|n42+2=n2.

    (1.2) n1 (mod 4).

    Since |(Y1{x11,x12,x13,x1(n1),x1n})D|n52, |Y1D|n52+3=n+12.

    (1.3) n2 (mod 4).

    Since |(Y1{x11,x12,x13,x1(n2),x1(n1),x1n})D|n62, |Y1D|n62+4=n+22.

    (1.4) n3 (mod 4).

    Since |(Y1{x11,x12,x13,x14,x1(n2),x1(n1),x1n})D|n72, |Y1D|n72+4=n+12.

    Case 2. |{x11,x1n}D|=1. We may assume that x11D,x1nD. By (F2) and (F4), {x12,x13,x1(n1),x1n}D. Then we have the following conclusions by (F3).

    (1.1) n0 (mod 4).

    |(Y1{x11,x12,x13,x1n})D|n42, so |Y1D|n42+3=n+22.

    (1.2) n1 (mod 4).

    |(Y1{x11,x12,x13,x1(n1),x1n})D|n52, so |Y1D|n52+4=n+32.

    (1.3) n2 (mod 4).

    |(Y1{x11,x12,x13,x1(n2),x1(n1),x1n})D|n62, then |Y1D|n62+4=n+22.

    (1.4) n3 (mod 4).

    |(Y1{x11,x12,x13,x14,x1(n2),x1(n1),x1n})D|n72, so |Y1D|n72+4=n+12.

    Case 3. {x11,x1n}D. By (F2) and (F4), {x11,x12,x1(n1),x1n}D. By (F3), the following are established.

    (1.1) n0 (mod 4).

    By |(Y1{x11,x12,x1(n1),x1n})D|n42, |Y1D|n42+4=n+42.

    (1.2) n1 (mod 4).

    By |(Y1{x11,x12,x13,x1(n1),x1n})D|n52, |Y1D|n52+4=n+32.

    (1.3) n2 (mod 4).

    By |(Y1{x11,x12,x13,x1(n2),x1(n1),x1n})D|n62, |Y1D|n62+4=n+22.

    (1.4) n3 (mod 4).

    Recall that {x11,x12,x1(n1),x1n}D. Furthermore, by (F1), |{x13,x14,x15}D|1. By (F3), |(Y1{x11,x12,x13,x14,x15,x1(n1),x1n})D|n72. Thus |Y1D|n72+5=n+32.

    We will complete the proof by considering all cases dependent on x11,x1n,xm1,xmn in D or not.

    (1) If {x11,x1n,xm1,xmn}D=, then

    |D(X1XnY1Ym)|2(n2+m2)=m+n

    according to Case 1.

    (2) If |{x11,x1n,xm1,xmn}D|=1, w.l.o.g., assuming that xm1D, then

    |D(Y1Ym)|min{n2+n+22,n+12+n+32,n+22+n+22,n+12+n+12}=n+1

    according to Cases 1 and 2. Similarly, |D(X1Xn)|m+1. Since xm1 is counted twice, we have |D(X1XnY1Ym)|m+n+1.

    (3) If |{x11,x1n,xm1,xmn}D|=2, then there are two possible subcases to be considered up to isomorphism. If {xm1,xmn}D, then

    |D(Y1Ym)|min{n2+n+42,n+12+n+32,n+22+n+22,n+12+n+32}=n+2

    according to Cases 1 and 3, and |D(X1Xn)|m+1 by Case 2. Noting that either of xm1,xmn is counted twice, |D(X1XnY1Ym)|m+n+1. If {xm1,x1n}D, then

    |D(Y1Ym)|n+1 and |D(X1Xn)|m+1

    according to Case 2. Since either of xm1,x1n is counted twice, |D(X1XnY1Ym)|m+n.

    (4) If |{x11,x1n,xm1,xmn}D|=3, then we may assume that x11D by symmetry. By Cases 2 and 3,

    |D(Y1Ym)|min{n+22+n+42,n+32+n+32,n+22+n+22,n+12+n+32}=n+2,

    and similarly |D(X1Xn)|m+2. Noting that each of x1n,xm1,xmn is counted twice, we have |D(X1XnY1Ym)|m+n+1.

    (5) If {x11,x1n,xm1,xmn}D, then

    |D(Y1Ym)|n+2 and |D(X1Xn)|m+2

    by Case 3. Since each of x11,x1n,xm1,xmn is counted twice, |D(X1XnY1Ym)|m+n.

    Next, we will give bounds for γ×2,t(PmPn) when m4. When m=4, it is stated as the following theorem.

    Theorem 2.7. Let n2 be an integer. Then

    9n4+1γ×2,t(P4Pn){12n5+2,ifn0(mod5);12n5+185,ifn1(mod5);12n5+165,ifn2(mod5);12n5+145,ifn3(mod5);12n5+125,ifn4(mod5).

    Proof. Let G=P4Pn with P4=abcd and Pn=v1v2vn, where n2. Set Xi={ai,bi,ci,di} for 1in, Y1=ni=1ai and Y4=ni=1di.

    We firstly prove the upper bound by constructing a DTDS of G. For integer k0, set

    X=(k1i=0X5i+1)(k1i=0X5i+4)(k1i=0{a5i+2,a5i+3,d5i+2,d5i+3}).

    Clearly, |X|=12k. Next, we give a DTDS, denoted by S, of G according to the value of n.

    When n=5k, set S=X{b5k,c5k}. Thus |S|=12k+2=12n5+2. Therefore γ×2,t(G)|S|=12n5+2.

    When n=5k+1, set S=XX5k+1{a5k,d5k}. Then γ×2,t(G)|S|=12k+6=12n+185.

    When n=5k+2, set S=XX5k+1X5k+2. So γ×2,t(G)|S|=12k+8=12n+165.

    When n=5k+3, set S=XX5k+1X5k+3{a5k+2,d5k+2}. Then γ×2,t(G)|S|=12k+10=12n+145.

    Finally, when n=5k+4, set

    S=XX5k+1X5k+4{a5k+2,a5k+3,d5k+2,d5k+3}.

    Hence

    γ×2,t(G)|S|=12k+12=12n+125.

    Next, let D be a minimum DTDS in G and D=V(G)D. We will prove the lower bound by counting the edges between D and D. Set W=X1XnY1Y4. By Lemma 2.6, |DW|n+4. Note that each vertex in DW has at most one neighbor in D, and each one in DW has at most two neighbors in D. So

    e(D,D)=e(DW,D)+e(DW,D)|DW|+2|DW|=2|D||DW|2|D|(n+4).

    Then

    2(4n|D|)=2|D|e(D,D)2|D|(n+4).

    Hence we have |D|9n4+1.

    Now, we consider the bounds of γ×2,t(PmPn) for m5 and n5.

    Theorem 2.8. For integers m5, n5,

    mn2+m+n4γ×2,t(PmPn){mn2+m+n+22,ifn0,2(mod4);mn2+m+n+32,ifn1(mod4);mn2+m+n+12,ifn3(mod4).

    Proof. Let G=PmPn with Pm=u1u2um, Pn=v1v2vn, where m5, n5. For the vertex uiV(Pm) and vjV(Pn), we denote simply the vertex (ui,vj) by xij, 1im, 1jn. For each 1im and 1jn, we denote Xj=mi=1xij, Yi=nj=1xij. Let D be a minimum DTDS of G, and D=V(G)D.

    Let W=X1XnY1Ym. By Lemma 2.6, |DW|m+n. Counting the edges between D and D, we have 2(mn|D|)=2|D|e(D,D)=e(DW,D)+e(DW,D)|DW|+2|DW|=2|D||DW|2|D|(m+n). Then γ×2,t(PmPn)=|D|mn2+m+n4.

    To prove the upper bounds, for integer k1, set

    X=(k1i=0X4i+1)(k1i=0X4i+3)(k1i=0{x1(4i+2),xm(4i+2)}).

    Then |X|=2mk+2k. Next, we give a DTDS of G for each of the possible cases to complete the proof.

    Case 1. n=4k.

    Let

    A=m41i=0{x(4i+2)4k,x(4i+3)4k},

    set S=XA{x(m2)4k,x(m1)4k}. When m0(mod4), {x(m2)4k,x(m1)4k}A, so |A{x(m1)4k,x(m2)4k}|=m2. When m1(mod4), x(m2)4kA, so |A{x(m1)4k,x(m2)4k}|=m+12. When m2(mod4), |A{x(m1)4k,x(m2)4k}|=m+22. When m3(mod4), |A{x(m1)4k,x(m2)4k}|=m+12. Hence, |A{x(m1)4k,x(m2)4k}|m+22. Clearly, each vertex in V(G)X4k has at least two neighbors in S. For any vertex xX4k, x has at least one neighbor in SX4k. Noting that X4k1S, each vertex in X4k has at least two neighbors in S. That is to say, S is a DTDS of G. Thus

    γ×2,t(G)|S|2mk+2k+m+22=mn2+m+n+22.

    Case 2. n=4k+1.

    Set S=XX4k+1{x1(4k),xm(4k)}. Then S is a DTDS of G. So γ×2,t(G)|S|=2mk+2k+m+2=mn2+m+n+32.

    Case 3. n=4k+2.

    Let

    B=X4k+1(m41i=0{x(4i+1)(4k+2),x(4i+2)(4k+2)}).

    When m0(mod4), set S=XB{x(m1)(4k+2),xm(4k+2)}. Then |S||X|+m+m2+2=|X|+3m+42.

    When m1(mod4), set S=XB{x(m1)(4k+2),xm(4k+2)}. Then |S||X|+m+m12+2=|X|+3m+32.

    When m2(mod4), set S=XB{x(m1)(4k+2),xm(4k+2)}. Then |S||X|+m+m22+2=|X|+3m+22.

    When m3(mod4), set S=XB(mi=m2{xi(4k+2)}). Then |S||X|+m+m32+3=|X|+3m+32. In each of these cases, we have

    |S||X|+3m+42=2mk+2k+3m+42=mn2+m+n+22.

    Next, we show that S is a DTDS of G. Clearly, for each vertex xV(G)(X4k+1X4k+2), x has at least two neighbors in S. Noting that X4k+1S, each vertex in X4k+1 has two neighbors in X4k+1 except x1(4k+1) and xm(4k+1). Also, x1(4k+1) (xm(4k+1)) has another neighbor x1(4k+2) (xm(4k+2)) in S. For any vertex xX4k+2, x has one neighbor in X4k+1 and at least one neighbor in SX4k+2. Then each vertex in X4k+1X4k+2 has at least two neighbors in S. Therefore, S is a DTDS of G. Then

    γ×2,t(G)|S|=mn2+m+n+22.

    Case 4. n=4k+3.

    Set S=XX4k+1X4k+3{x1(4k+2),xm(4k+2)}. Clearly, S is a DTDS of G. Thus

    γ×2,t(G)|S|=2mk+2k+2m+2=mn2+m+n+12.

    In the paper, the values of γ×2,t(PiPn) for i=2,3 are determined. For γ×2,t(P4Pn), we give lower and upper bounds with a gap no more than 320n+135 and, for γ×2,t(PmPn) with m,n5, we give lower and upper bounds with a gap at most m+n4+32.

    The lower bounds in Theorem 2.7 and Theorem 2.8 could be improved if one may analyze the adjacent structures of DTDSs of PmPn more carefully according to definition of the double total domination. For example, it is easy to verify that γ×2,t(P4P4)=12, that attains the upper bound in Theorem 2.7 for the case n=4. Moreover, Figure 5(a) demonstrates that the lower bound of γ×2,t(P5P5) could be improved to 18. (For an arbitrary DTDS D of P5P5, each of the solid circle and the dash curves in Figure 5(a) covers at least two vertices of D.) In Figure 5(b), we give a DTDS to show that the value of γ×2,t(P5P5) is exactly 18, that is greater than the lower bound in Theorem 2.8 for the case m=n=5.

    Figure 5.  (a) Any DTDS of P5P5 contains at least 18 vertices. (b) A DTDS with 18 vertices.

    This research is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 12071265) and the Shandong Provincial Natural Science Foundation (No. ZR2019MA032).

    The authors declare no conflicts of interest.



    [1] S. Bermudo, J. C. Hernández-Gómez, J. M. Sigarreta, Total k-dominaiton in strong product graphs, Discrete Appl. Math., 263 (2019), 51–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.DAM.2018.03.043 doi: 10.1016/J.DAM.2018.03.043
    [2] S. Bermudo, D. L. Jalemskaya, J. M. Sigarreta, Total 2-domination in grid graphs, Utilitas Math., 110 (2019), 151–173.
    [3] S. Bermudo, J. L. Sanchéz, J. M. Sigarreta, Total k-domination number in Cartesian product graphs, Period. Math. Hung., 75 (2017), 255–267. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10998-017-0191-2 doi: 10.1007/s10998-017-0191-2
    [4] J. A. Bondy, U. S. R. Murty, Graph theory, Graduate Texts in Mathematics, Vol. 244, London: Springer-Verlag, 2008.
    [5] A. Cabrera-Martínez, F. A. Hernández-Mira, New bounds on the double total domination number of graphs, Bull. Malays. Math. Sci. Soc., 45 (2021), 443–453. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40840-021-01200-0 doi: 10.1007/s40840-021-01200-0
    [6] N. Campanelli, D. Kuziak, Total Roman domination in the lexicographic product of graphs, Discrete Appl. Math., 263 (2019), 88–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.DAM.2018.06.008 doi: 10.1016/J.DAM.2018.06.008
    [7] W. Carballosa, J. Wisby, Total k-domination in Cartesian product of complete graphs, arXiv, 2020. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2001.07850
    [8] E. J. Cockayne, R. M. Dawes, S. T. Hedetniemi, Total domination in graphs, Networks, 10 (1980), 211–219. https://doi.org/10.1002/net.3230100304 doi: 10.1002/net.3230100304
    [9] M. A. Henning, A survey of selected recent results on total domination in graphs, Discrete Math., 309 (2009), 32–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.disc.2007.12.044 doi: 10.1016/j.disc.2007.12.044
    [10] M. A. Henning, A. P. Kazemi, k-tuple total domination in graphs, Discrete Appl. Math., 158 (2010), 1006–1011. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dam.2010.01.009 doi: 10.1016/j.dam.2010.01.009
    [11] M. A. Henning, A. P. Kazemi, k-tuple total domination in cross products of graphs, J. Comb. Optim., 24 (2012), 339–346. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10878-011-9389-z doi: 10.1007/s10878-011-9389-z
    [12] M. A. Henning, A. Yeo, Total domination in graphs, Springer Monographs in Mathematics, New York: Springer, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-6525-6
    [13] F. Hu, M. Y. Sohn, X. Chen, Total and paired domination numbers of Cm bundles over a cycle Cn, J. Comb. Optim., 32 (2016), 608–625. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10878-015-9885-7 doi: 10.1007/s10878-015-9885-7
    [14] F. Hu, J. Xu, Total and paired domination numbers of toroidal meshes, J. Comb. Optim., 27 (2014), 369–378. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10878-012-9519-2 doi: 10.1007/s10878-012-9519-2
    [15] A. P. Kazemi, B. Pahlavsay, R. J. Stones, Cartesian product graphs and k-tuple total domination, Filomat, 32 (2018), 6713–6731. https://doi.org/10.2298/FIL1819713K doi: 10.2298/FIL1819713K
    [16] N. Li, X. Hou, On the total k-domination number of Cartesian products of graphs, J. Comb. Optim., 18 (2009), 173–178. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10878-008-9144-2 doi: 10.1007/s10878-008-9144-2
    [17] N. J. Rad, Upper bounds on the k-tuple domination number and k-tuple total domination number of a graph, Australas. J. Comb., 73 (2019), 280–290.
    [18] J. Yue, S. Zhang, Y. Zhu, S. Klavžar, Y. Shi, The annihilation number does not bound the 2-domination number from the above, Discrete Math., 343 (2019), 111707. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.disc.2019.111707 doi: 10.1016/j.disc.2019.111707
    [19] J. Yue, Y. Zhu, M. Wei, The annihilation number and the total domination number of a tree-like graph, Appl. Math. Comput., 380 (2020), 125240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amc.2020.125240 doi: 10.1016/j.amc.2020.125240
  • This article has been cited by:

    1. Antoaneta Klobučar, Ana Klobučar Barišić, Total and Double Total Domination on Octagonal Grid, 2024, 13, 2075-1680, 792, 10.3390/axioms13110792
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2023 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Metrics

Article views(1563) PDF downloads(87) Cited by(1)

Figures and Tables

Figures(5)

Other Articles By Authors

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog